Posted on 12/26/2002 5:39:33 AM PST by John W
Well sport, 'property rights' is the game at this table.
But I'm flexible...
Now... Can you tell me, with a straight face, that you honestly believe that we live under the 'rule of law'?
And this isn't idle curiosity on my part...
I just want to know whether you're sentimental or delusional.
What I can honestly tell you is that we should live under the rule of law. Whether we do or do not is immaterial to that. I may be both sentimental and delusional, but I am not peverse.
Thank that'd fly?
LOL!
You're not delusional, laredo... Just sentimental.
Law is what we make it, and -most of the time- it's a filthy business at best.
You either don't understand, or you conveniently ignore, that MY argument here has been just as solidly based on a quixotic ideal as your utopian pining for 'the rule of law' is.
With regard to restrictive covenants, you don't agree with me…
And laredo, I honestly, truly, genuinely don't give a fig that you don't.
It's really not complicated.
TQ, untie your undies and read what's going on here. Ted Koppel picked up 16 acres of prime land because your federal government backed empty loans against it, and unloaded it on the cheap when the loans failed (at by my guess a 75% discount). I don't know about you, but I'm damn mad about having footed the bill (not about not hearing about the sale- what kind of a straw argument is that?).
Bill and Hillary Clinton had a little game going with the Madison Guaranty S&L where they overpaid for a parcel, had it reappraised by a friendly banker, sold it, bought it back, and so on. And when the S&L collapsed, the loans were 'backed by the government' so they had no reason to pay anything back. You're goddamn right this was a conspiracy-- tho I'm not saying this one was Koppel's (or Clinton's)
Bringing in the martyred "taxpayers" into this is unbecoming.
What's unbecoming is having to live in a country with gleeful sheep like you who aren't just willing to send your confiscated money to Washington, you'll drive it there and shovel it onto the pile.
Disgusting.
You're different in this regard?
Yes, I give a damn about other people's rights that don't affect me. No, I'm not a selfish bastard.
You're just not paying attention S2R...
The ENTIRE thrust of my argument here is that intangibles like 'viewsheds' and the underlying restrictions intended to create and enforce them are a BS corruption of the law, fully ripe for challenge, and that they are in no way whatsoever equivalent to authentic intangibles like mineral or water rights, which may rightly be divorced from a property's surface rights.
I'm not indifferent to the rights of another, I dispute that this particular ersatz 'right' is legitimate.
This isn't that tough to follow...
"...No, I'm not a selfish bastard..."
If, by 'selfish bastard' you mean someone who looks out for number one first...
Duh...
I plead guilty.
If you don't look out for number one first and foremost you'll be victimized. That's the kind of world we live in, that the sort of creatures we are.
If you are truly 'unselfish', as defined here, would you mind if I victimized you?
If no one else has dibs on your cash, would you send it to me ASAP?
To put your interests before mine would be, as you know, a selfish act.
And we can't have that, can we?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.